Sample For Business Analysis

Mr. Sample will counter a few of these arguments with his own interpretation of the factors along with other relevant factors regarding the idea that Kary is an independent contractor instead. Sample will argue for the factor of “the extent of any training provided by the employer.” (Id. at 710, 845 P.2d at 706). He will argue this factor because there is not any proper training that is really provided by him. All he does is explain the rules to new hires and provide a list of suggestions that may help them in their sales. He will argue that this is not really training and that the vendors are selling the peanuts according to their own methods, which is a qualification of an independent contractor. He will counter Kary’s factor of a continuing
Yes, he may have to set up hours if there are not enough sign-ups for each game but that is not the way it is supposed to be. The vendors are supposed to make their own schedule. This is another link to having an independent contractor working by his own methods. The next relevant factor that Sample would bring up would be “the requirement of full-time work.” (Id. at 710, 845 P.2d at 706). An employer-employee relationship would be much more likely to have a requirement of full-time work. Since there is no requirement for full-time work, if Kary did work full-time, this would be a feature of being an independent contractor. Sample could also counter with the factor that deals with “the ability of the worker to incur a profit or a loss.” (Id. at 710, 845 P.2d at 706). He could argue this factor because overall there is a good chance of the peanut vendors being able to earn more with commission and tips and potential bonuses then they would earn from their biweekly paycheck. Since the ability to earn a profit or a loss is based more on the individual worker’s methods, this would lean towards the worker being an independent contractor rather than an
Cmty. Drive-In Theater, 214 Kan. 359, 364, 520 P.2d 1296, 1300 (1974). A more definite expression of this rule reads, “the test is not necessarily whether the specific conduct was expressly authorized or forbidden by the employer, but whether such conduct should have been fairly foreseen from the nature of the employment and the duties relating to it." (Commerce Bank of St. Joseph, N.A. v. State, 251 Kan. 207, 210, 833 P.2d 996, 999